High Court
Delhi court tells WhatsApp Moneycontrol scammers to control themselves
NEW DELHI: If you received a WhatsApp message promising stock market riches from someone claiming to represent Moneycontrol, congratulations—you were being fleeced. The Delhi high court has now pulled the plug on a sprawling scam that hijacked the trusted financial news platform’s name to separate gullible investors from their cash, according a livelaw.in report.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora handed down a permanent injunction on 19 December, ordering that several individuals be restrained from misusing the “Moneycontrol” trademark and that their WhatsApp accounts and mobile numbers stay blocked. The ruling caps a trademark infringement suit filed by Network18 Media & Investments, which runs Moneycontrol—one of India’s most popular sources for financial news, stock data, and investment information.
The con was straightforward in its audacity. Unknown individuals sent WhatsApp messages inviting recipients to join investment groups with names like “CINV The Premier Strategy Group,” promising insider stock tips and eye-watering returns. The groups had zero connection to Moneycontrol but traded shamelessly on its reputation. Unsuspecting punters, believing they were getting advice from a legitimate source, handed over substantial sums of money. They got fleeced instead.
Network18 started receiving complaints in March 2024 from confused members of the public who had been targeted by these fraudulent groups. The pattern was familiar to anyone who has spent five minutes on WhatsApp: join this exclusive group, get rich quick, send money now. The only thing exclusive about it was how thoroughly the scammers exploited Moneycontrol’s credibility.
The court was unimpressed by the defendants’ behaviour—or rather, their complete lack of it. Despite being served notice, none of the 21 individuals involved bothered to show up in court or contest the proceedings. That sort of no-show suggests either supreme confidence or the realisation that the game was up. The court went ahead anyway.
“The activities of the defendants establish a clear intention of showing a direct nexus or affiliation with the plaintiff and making a misrepresentation that its services have been licensed or approved or endorsed by the plaintiff,” Justice Arora observed. Legal-speak for: these people were pretending to be Moneycontrol, and they knew exactly what they were doing.
The court had earlier granted an interim injunction blocking the WhatsApp accounts and mobile numbers tied to the scam. Now it has made that ban permanent, with a one-year extension on the blocked numbers and a directive that they must not be reissued to the same individuals. One of the fraudulent WhatsApp groups has been permanently shut down as well.
The ruling underscores a persistent problem in India’s digital ecosystem: scammers brazenly impersonating legitimate brands on messaging platforms, counting on the fact that enforcement is patchy and victims are often too embarrassed to complain. Moneycontrol’s case is unusual only in that it reached court and resulted in a clear victory.
For Network18, the injunction is both vindication and a warning shot. Protecting a brand’s reputation in the age of WhatsApp fraud requires constant vigilance and legal firepower. For the scammers—or at least the ones daft enough to use traceable phone numbers—the message is clear: the court can and will shut you down.
As for the investors who lost money? The court order does not bring their cash back. It merely ensures that these particular fraudsters cannot keep using Moneycontrol’s name to find fresh victims. In the ruthless world of financial scams, that counts as a small mercy. Caveat emptor, as always—especially on WhatsApp.
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
